Ok, so registration = confiscation where "registration" = "ban"?

It's a very simple 3 step process to follow. why are you asking a question about it?

first, governments mandate registration

second, governments mandate bans on specific weapons

third, government confiscate

how hard was that to follow?

The slippery slope fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason.

Things like mandatory waiting periods, the registration of fire arms and owners, etc seem perfectly reasonable as crime prevention measures, and specifically doesn't infringe the right to keep and bear arms. (You could make some privacy arguments here, and I'd be open to listening to them).

Bans on specific weapons also seem reasonable, up to a point. To take an extreme example, no sane person would extend the right to bear arms to nuclear weapons. So there's a limit somewhere. I haven't researched the question much, but from what little I know offhand, I think the current limits are about right, but could maybe be cleaned up and simplified a bit. IIRC, most gun violence is from hand guns anyway, and we aren't going to ban those anytime soon.

How exactly would government confiscation of handguns work in this country? I'm not saying it couldn't happen, ever - eternal vigilance is necessary for a democratic government, and all that. But if it gets to the point where the gubmint comes for our guns, I think we're pretty deep in the shit already. Let's say Osama ordered the army/police to go round up the guns tomorrow. Imagine how well that would work out. You send the police door to door, to houses of people they *know* are armed...you get the idea.

So, like a lot of other advocacy/rights groups, the NRA + co do a lot of important work, but also engage in a lot of fear mongering, and storm-in-a-teakettle type activities.

So your problem isn't that registration is the problem; it's bans.

It wasn't hard to follow; I merely wanted you to confirm your bias.

if it actually occurs, it's hardly a fallacy. By continuing to advocate the 'fallacy' as if it never happens is delusional at best.

they seem reasonable to you, does that mean that only you get to decide whats reasonable? reasonable is a very subjective term. I suspect that you and I will never come to terms on the same definition of reasonable, so eventually somewhere along the lines someone is going to feel trod upon.

careful. I talked about this very thing and became considered an extremist. next thing you know, you'll be talking about killing police officers.....very bad. :oogle:
-----Added 24/1/2009 at 12 : 08 : 10-----
so registration = confiscation is my bias talking? history doesn't mean jack to you, does it?

Yes, when it's presented with a bias. Registration does not necessarily equal confiscation; not even in the examples you provided yourself.

Let's not jump to conclusions, now. That could lead you to reveal even more bias.

that's a bad equation

registration =/= confiscation

registration + ban = confiscation

let's at least get the math right

and again, your problem is with the ban, not the registration (more specifically, the idea that registration would force you to actually give up your now illegal firearm rather than be able to keep it illegally)

huh. in france, you have to register with the prefect of police and give your address.
this comes out of the way police activity developed across the 18th century.
and while it feels a little strange to do that because coming from the states you're not used to it....there's been no connection between registering and actions geared around expelling people. if the assumption that gun registration would lead to a ban and confiscation were not an example of a slippery slope fallacy, you'd expect to have seen one lead to another empirically. it hasn't.

the only exception to this was during world war 2---but that was an exception. unless you think, somehow, that all states indulge genocide, and uses the same bureaucratic mechanisms to do it (which is entirely false--there have been lots of routes to genocide), it's an example of a logical fallacy.

jeebus christ, the last 3 posts are like a version of orwells 1984. now I'm done with the conversation. it's pointless when you refuse to accept the reality of your surroundings.

I fail to see how registration will prevent crime. People that cause crimes with firearms aren't going to register them and the vast majority of people that will register theirs to remain legal won't be using them in a crime so what's the point again? Given this reality it's easy to assume that any registration will precede confiscation.

Now you're overreacting.

This hasn't happened. What's happened is that you've failed to rationalize "our surroundings" (i.e. what you are getting at with registration). We can't read your mind. You've left many things open to interpretation and we called you out on it.
-----Added 24/1/2009 at 02 : 51 : 19-----

Registration is not an all-on-one solution. Gun smuggling, etc. is another issue.

no, the reality you think you live in isn't reality. seriously, I don't know where you live, but it's like 1% similar to the America I've lived in for 34 years

So remind me again what will be accomplished by gun registration?

I'll point out from the onset that one of the problems is that there hasn't been any successful implementation of a gun registry that I know of. roachboy mentioned France, but I can't speak to that because I don't know much about it, so I will leave that to him. Some of the challenges of a gun registry are obvious enough: escalating cost and non-compliance are two that come to mind. But to suggest these are deal-breakers when it comes to a registry doesn't make a lot of sense, as it would suggest giving up on other projects that have similar problems, rather than facing them and overcoming them as challenges.

As far as what a gun registry aims to accomplish, there are a few things. What it isn't meant for (in cases of which I'm familiar) is to ban and confiscate arms. I've noted in this thread more than once that in the U.S., government is empowered by a mandatory freedom of the people, which includes the right to owning guns, so let's set that aside (i.e. the government does not want to take all the guns away).

I will only put out a few things a gun registry is used for in summary, as I don't have a lot of time at the moment:

• To help distinguish between guns which are legal and guns which aren't (i.e. guns that are legally registered and guns that are smuggled).
• To encourage registered gun owners to better secure their guns, which will help prevent gun theft and even accidents in the home.
• To discourage casual gun ownership in those who don't have the same level of responsibility as those who understand the workings and the dangers of guns, thus reducing instances of unwanted or unnecessary guns.

These are merely some summarized ideas. As I've suggested, this shouldn't be a be-all-and-end-all of gun ownership. It should be regarded as a means to increase public safety.

I don't agree with banning weapons that have been registered. But this is where I think the NRA needs to come in. The government should enforce the "well-regulated militia" part and make sure that people are screened before being able to purchase guns, but use the NRA as a middleman. Sure, there are plenty of black-market people out there who won't play by the rules, but it's in the NRA/gun-owner's best interest that those numbers are controlled. If it doesn't happen, bans on certain guns being produced could happen or people would need to register with the state national guard instead of the third-party NRA.

I wonder how many people have been denied from buying a gun through the current background check program if they know that they can buy it used without going through it

baraka--i was using the example of registering people, which is the practice in france, in order to point out that there is no necessary connection along the lines that dk was arguing. gun control is draconian in france, but i wasn't talking about that--i don't know the details as i've never even imagined bringing a gun there.

The reality is that the last time Congress even raised the issue of confiscation (during a "state of emergency"), Obama voted against it.
-----Added 24/1/2009 at 07 : 19 : 14-----
Social Security

The military usually leads the way on social programs (racial integration, seeing how humans can survive on salted meat from 4 years ago, etc). To anybody who thinks they aren't a number, try opening a bank account or buying a car from a dealership. We are borg... even if we don't want to be.

...

All your base? They has it.

Yep....Social Security is a bitch.

Who wants to keep millions of senior out of poverty...or through medicare, provide seniors with a better quality of life.

When the gun registration = confiscation argument is made, one comes across as either paranoid or a fear monger.

There are 240+ million firearms in the US and they arent being confiscated and unless/until there is a complete breakdown of the system of 200+ year old checks and balances, it aint gonna happen.

Get over it!

Hopefully you're right. In New York, they first mandated registration of all 'assault-type' firearms. They later banned them and would show up at peoples houses to take those guns away. Owners who had registered guns had to either give them up, or show proof of sale.

really? one of the reasons I never registered my assault rifles in CA was that very reason. My other friends who did, had to turn them in or show proof of sale.

There's no paranoia there, I was able to give my friend my weapons, and he still has them to this day. Whereas those that registered them, they had to hand them over.

As far as Social Security is concerned, Cromp isn't talking about benefits, he's talking about IDENTIFICATION. One cannot do much business without an SSI# here in the US.

I can't tell you how many times I have to fight with people who WANT or DEMAND my SSI# as part of the form I need to fill out for my dr, insurance, college course, schools, cellphone (including disposable/prepaid AT&T), the list is growing EVERY DAY.

There is absolutely paranoia here to suggest that a state registration or ban of one type of weapon will lead to a federal program of confiscating and/or banning all firearms.

It ignores all political reality:

the Heller decision

the fact that the last attempt at an AWB in Congress two years ago had only 15-20 sponsors in the House (and never got out of Committee or even had a hearing) and had NO companion bill in the Senate

the fact that Obama (along with 80+ other Senators) voted against an amendment to a DHS bill several years ago (after Katrina) to confiscate guns during a "state of "emergency"

Paranoia, pure and simple, that the federal system of checks and balances will not only stumble a bit, but break down completely....something that has never happened in 200+ years.

Or fear mongering.

Take your choice.

MY FEELINGS! Oh, wait... Cynth's got it.

Feelings often get in the way of the facts....particularly on the issue of gun control.

Ya know... KirStang and I went shooting today and I'll be damned if not one snotfaced child was killed by the merciless wrath of our demonic hardware.

...

No, seriously... DC_Dux... how do you feel about using your SSN to identify you as a person everywhere at all times for "security purposes?"

I was thinking about getting a tattoo on my inner left forearm just to make it easier.

Auschwitz'd!

I dont respond to ignorant comparisons to Auschwitz....or Stalin's Russia....or Mao's China....or Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.

All such comparisons have been made by the paranoia extremists gun crowd.

Gun control worked for the Nazis.

YouTube - Nazi Gun Control

YouTube - Nazi Gun Control

It must make you a proud American knowing that you served your nation during its slow drift toward Nazism.

Or just another gun nut (correction - "hobbyist") with a warped sense of humor.

When did I serve my nation again? I was in the army but I sure as hell don't remember helping anybody.

I like your style of name-calling. It makes me tingle inside to know that government service = douchebaggery.

...

I think the key to success in this next administration will be to focus on enforcing that which is present instead of trying to gut another legislative chicken and double-take on the entrails. Guns and otherwise.

I DONT like your inferred comparisons to Auchwitz and Nazism.

You know anyone who lived through it...with a number tattooed on their arm.

I do...my SOs father.

Your comparison is ugly and ignorant.

Crompsin...so stick to the facts, please!

No more references to Nazism would be a start.
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 12 : 55 : 41-----
Funny how you conveniently ignored the facts I posted and chose to go the Nazi route:
Perhaps you should wait until we lose our vibrant two party system of free and open elections, the checks and balances between branches of government, and an independent judiciary before offering any such additional pearls of wisdom.

I would prefer not to wait, and I truly believe you don't want to wait for it to get that bad either. When things get that bad history has taught us that in general it's not a good thing for liberals or free thinkers. It's really in your best interest that the people are generally armed, whether you like admitting it or not.

I have no problem with reasonable people being armed if that is their choice....I have never opposed it.

That doesnt mean all citizens should have guaranteed access to all types of firearms or in all circumstances and carry in all locations.

The difference is that I dont believe it will ever get as bad as Nazi Germany, Communist China, Zimbabwe or any other countless dictatorial regimes.

IMO, its delusional and a bogus argument that gun control will somehow lead to a dictatorship.

I believe the safeguards in our system will prevent that....it certainly has for 200+ years.

The Heller decision is only the most recent example of those safeguards. (btw, as a DC resident, I opposed the gun ban as too restrictive)

-----Added 25/1/2009 at 05 : 15 : 15-----
There is absolutely NOTHING that you can point to that would suggest that the gun control measures enacted over the last 50+ years has put the US down the slow path towards totalitarianism.

Playing the NAZI card is cheap theatrics....or.....

PARANOIA or FEAR MONGERING!

i have been sitting here for 3 or so minutes of my life trying to figure out if i should intervene in mod-mode or not...i'll try it this way.

there is an accepted series of features that define totalitarian political regimes.
there is an accepted set of features that define facism. another that defines the characteristics of stalinism, etc. these are not mysterious. you can look them up.

*nowhere* is the presence or absence of gun controls a defining characteristic of any of these regimes.

in the history of stalinist political rhetoric--which i know way too much about--it was routine to call anyone who opposed the cp a fascist. one effect of that was the gradual draining any meaning from the term.
it's funny to see the gun folk reverting to the same tactic.

it's not necessary, it doesn't advance any arguments--and it doesn't refer to anything.

so stop it, please.

there are situations in relation to which the term can mean something.
no good is served by making it just another meme which substitutes for "i really don't like it."

I agree that playing the Nazi card in the way it was used was a cheap shot.

However, I think it would have been entirely appropriate to point out that under Nazi Germany gun registration preceded confiscation. This has been a trend over and over again by governments making power plays (as well as relatively liberal states) and is not unique to Germany.

The safeguards in our system should prevent a slow slide towards dictatorship....the 2'nd amendment is one of those safeguards.

I personally feel we are eroding ALL of our constitutional safeguards and that most of the Amendments as they are interpreted today would make our founding fathers roll over in their graves.

The 2'nd Amendment is simply one of them, but it represents perhaps the last refuge of a scared populace....Our government isn't bad, but if we remove those safeguards now because we have nothing to fear, future generations may have no recourse against a tyrannical gov.

if this government becomes tyrannical, they won't have much recourse anyways.

I disagree completely.

No amount of military might will be able to quell a population which supports a revolution and has at least SOME means of defense/offense.

Quitter.

That kind of mentality makes terrorist attacks and school shootings a viable option in a country that has so many firearms in tha hands of private citizens.

"Awwh, I can't do nuffin'. Shucks, mights-well just lay down 'n die."
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 07 : 19 : 45-----
And so what if it's true?

I fail to see the cheap shot, but let's go with it here for a sec. It sits down range next to all the other cheap shots that refer to gun owners "insert historical figure and/or group with negative connotations here." We're all not Derwood and we're all not DK.

I need to remember to stay out of this thread.